At 12:43 AM 6/13/96 -0500, Eric wrote:>We can fight against them, but that would>be a war we could never win. And the one we are fighting here is>nothing less than the "fundamental western illusion": that objects have>essences.

One might ask why we would want to fight against them. I mean, not, "we
shouldn't fight against them," but "what is our purpose in fighting against
them?" If, for example, we're going to chuck mythos as a method for
determining the meaning of life, and instead rely on logos, why are we
doing this? What does it offer us that mythos does not?

An important question, because <logic> does not properly operate in relms
where human experience is very faulty, data is not well collected or
collectable, or even the process of <logic> itself is questioned. We have
to fall back to a more utilitarian concept: where does logocentrism get me?

Just as "where does mythocentrism get me?"

I contend that neither gets anyone much of anywhere, because they deal with
different realms of experience. I also contend that most people mix logical
thinking and mythical thinking quite successfully, and that it's been done
for a much longer time than, say, Post-Structuralism or Post-Modernism.

[ btw: thanks for the "mythos" phrase. ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Williams ICQ Address: 1213689 prefect@tricon.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"See my loafers? Former gophers!"
Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Yearshttp://www.3wave.com/~prefect/